Hello! Some of you might remember me from fisheaters, some from suscipe domine, and perhaps even some from tradcath. If not, then I will be happy to meet you. For those who remember me, it's good to see some familiar faces (names) again!

I won't be able to post that often or that extensively, but I hope to be able to post more than I have over the last couple years. I look forward to our congenial, good faith discussions.

In Christ, INP

Nice to see that you weren't put off by Vinny Zee

I was at first, to be honest. But then I followed the thread he linked and saw there was more to the story than I was getting. Then a little bit more interaction made everything much more clear.

Yes, VZ isn't quite as straightforward as he would like to appear. Good to have a new "name" on the forum

Hello! Some of you might remember me from fisheaters, some from suscipe domine, and perhaps even some from tradcath. If not, then I will be happy to meet you. For those who remember me, it's good to see some familiar faces (names) again!

I won't be able to post that often or that extensively, but I hope to be able to post more than I have over the last couple years. I look forward to our congenial, good faith discussions.

In Christ, INP

Nice to see that you weren't put off by Vinny Zee

I was at first, to be honest. But then I followed the thread he linked and saw there was more to the story than I was getting. Then a little bit more interaction made everything much more clear.

Yes, VZ isn't quite as straightforward as he would like to appear. Good to have a new "name" on the forum

Hello! Some of you might remember me from fisheaters, some from suscipe domine, and perhaps even some from tradcath. If not, then I will be happy to meet you. For those who remember me, it's good to see some familiar faces (names) again!

I won't be able to post that often or that extensively, but I hope to be able to post more than I have over the last couple years. I look forward to our congenial, good faith discussions.

In Christ, INP

Nice to see that you weren't put off by Vinny Zee

I was at first, to be honest. But then I followed the thread he linked and saw there was more to the story than I was getting. Then a little bit more interaction made everything much more clear.

Hello! Some of you might remember me from fisheaters, some from suscipe domine, and perhaps even some from tradcath. If not, then I will be happy to meet you. For those who remember me, it's good to see some familiar faces (names) again!

I won't be able to post that often or that extensively, but I hope to be able to post more than I have over the last couple years. I look forward to our congenial, good faith discussions.

Not to split hairs, but St. Thomas is in agreement with the Church if we consider conception to be the two-fold act that it is. On the one hand, there is the physical conception of the body; on the other, there is the spiritual conception of the soul animating that body. Both of these conceptions (the conception of the body and soul) happen in exactly the same instant in time, but the conception of the body necessarily precedes the conception of the soul in the ontological order. God doesn't create the soul until the body is conceived, so in the order of creation the existence of the body is logically and ontologically prior to the existence of the soul, though they are both created in the same temporal instant. Therefore, it is entirely possible that our Lady was physically conceived in Original Sin but spiritually conceived exempt from it, such that, at the very instant the soul was infused into the body (the moment of conception), the body no longer manifested the effects of original sin, though it retained all of its physical characteristics.By the action of man, she is conceived in Original Sin and, hence, from this perspective, St. Thomas is correct is pointing out she needs to be redeemed as Scripture says all men do. But by the action of God, her soul is conceived exempt from it and so she is properly conceived without sin as the Immaculate Conception. Thus, Mary could in a sense physically appear to be like everyone else (and thus not draw undue attention to herself) while being free from the debilitating effects of Original Sin, both spiritual and physical.

EDIT:

The Church speaks of "conception" as a temporal instant, in which case it truly was the Immaculate Conception. However, the philosophers (like St. Thomas) distinguished the temporal order from the ontological order. It is this order that a cause may precede an effect, which both happen at the same temporal instant. Perhaps St. Thomas' dilemma concerned the prevalent opinion of his generation concerning the time between conception and ensoulment, known as "quickening." It was commonly believed that the body was conceived for some time in the womb before the soul was created to animate that body. Biological advancements have since shown us that there is every reason to believe that ensoulment takes place at the very instant of conception, though logically posterior to it (since the infusion of the soul logically necessitates the prior existence of the body). The language "conception" in St. Thomas' era would have referred to simple biological conception, anticipating the infusion of the soul. But if they happen simultaneously in time then the conception is truly immaculate, though in the ontological order the body is conceived in sin but sanctified in the same instant by the immaculate soul, free from Original Sin.

Hello! Some of you might remember me from fisheaters, some from suscipe domine, and perhaps even some from tradcath. If not, then I will be happy to meet you. For those who remember me, it's good to see some familiar faces (names) again!

I won't be able to post that often or that extensively, but I hope to be able to post more than I have over the last couple years. I look forward to our congenial, good faith discussions.